Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rekha Sangwan vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 13 April, 2026
1
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1507/2023
Reserved on: 09.03.2026
Pronounced on:13.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Smt. Rekha Sagwan
Deputy Superintendent of Police
CBI, EOB, Chennai (Compulsory Retirement)
Aged 51 years
Presently residing at:
Manchahat Apartments Flat No. 608
Plot No. 42, Sector - 10, Dwarka, South West District
New Delhi - 110075.
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Mr. Saurabh)
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented through its Secretary
Dept. of Personnel & Training, M/o Public Grievances
& Pensions, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through its Director
5-B, 11th Floor, A-Wing, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3. Shri Vineet Vinayak
Joint Director (HoZ) CBI
Chandigarh Zone, CBI Headquarters
Plot No. 5 - B, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
4. Shri A. Chaurasia H
Head of Branch CBI, ACB, Plot No. 8, Sector 30 A
Chandigarh - 160029.
5. Shri Ashwin Shenvi
Head of Branch CBI, ACB
Plot No. 8, Sector 30 A, Chandigarh - 160029.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Jain with Mr. ASI Babu Lal)
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
2
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr.B. Anand, Member (A):
By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged order dated 28.04.2023 whereby the respondents have rejected her representation made against the order of premature retirement under FR 56(j). Under challenge is also an order dated 23.12.2022 prematurely retiring the applicant by invoking the provisions of FR 56(j).
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 Call for the records;
8.2 Allow the OA with costs;
8.3 quash and set aside Order No. 2887/2022 dated 23.12.2022 bearing No. DP Pers-I/2022/2923/A- 15012/3/2022-Esttb dated 23.12.2022;
8.4 Set aside/Quash the order dated 28.04.2023 by which the review sought by the Applicant of the order under FR-56j was rejected;
8.5 To direct the respondent(s) to reinstate applicant in service with all consequential benefits from the date of order of compulsory retirement dated 23.12.2022.
8.6 Direct the Respondents to grant full pay and allowances for the period from 23.12.2022 till she is reinstated and treat her as having spent the period on duty for all intents and purposes;
8.7 Call for the case diaries and records pertaining to the RC-19 (A) 2015/ACB/CHG for the year 2020; 8.8 To award cost;
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
3
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
8.9 To grant any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. In response to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply wherein they have disputed and denied the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated her claim.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant joined the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a Sub- Inspector on 28.10.1996 and, over a span of more than 26 years, earned promotions to the rank of Inspector in the year 2003 and thereafter to Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2015. The applicant states that throughout her service career, she maintained an unblemished record, consistently receiving "Outstanding" and "Very Good" gradings in her Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs). She has also been the recipient of numerous commendations, appreciation letters, and over 100 cash rewards, which reflect her high level of professional competence and integrity. During the course of her career, the applicant was entrusted with several sensitive and high-profile investigations across the country, which she successfully handled. She states that her contributions in important cases such as the Shopian Double Murder Case, Shehla Masood Murder Case, Bhanwari Devi Case, Amit Jethwa Murder Case, and Dara Singh Murder Case underscore her ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 4 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 capability and dedication. Further, during her tenure at the CBI Academy between 2017 and 2019, she demonstrated commendable administrative ability by turning a financially strained mess into a surplus-generating unit.
4. In the year 2020, while posted at ACB, CBI Chandigarh, the applicant was assigned the task of further investigation in the Manesar Land Scam Case, which was being monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance with the directions of the Apex Court, she undertook a detailed examination of the case and, on 10.06.2020, submitted a confidential note highlighting serious deficiencies in the earlier investigation. She proposed further lines of inquiry, particularly with respect to identifying the "middlemen" and exploring the angle of quid pro quo, cautioning that any superficial investigation might invite adverse remarks from the Hon'ble Court.
5. However, according to the applicant, instead of appreciating her professional diligence, she was subjected to undue pressure from her superiors, who allegedly directed her verbally to ignore her findings and file a closure report. The applicant, adhering to her duty and professional integrity, refused to comply with such directions and insisted that any such instructions be given in writing, especially in view of the Supreme Court's monitoring of the case; consequent to her ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 5 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 refusal, the investigation was abruptly withdrawn from her on 17.07.2020.
6. Thereafter, the applicant alleges that she was subjected to systematic harassment and victimization. Her APARs for the years 2020 and 2021 were downgraded from "Outstanding" to "Good" by the same authority whose directions she had declined to follow. Notably, these downgrades were effected after a delay of nearly two years, in violation of the prescribed timelines, thereby raising serious doubts regarding their bona fides.
7. In 2021, the applicant was assigned a trap case, which she successfully investigated and charge-sheeted despite inadequate staffing. However, she was subsequently implicated in a vague and allegedly biased inquiry conducted by an officer subordinate to the same authority. The applicant was denied access to the inquiry report, which was nevertheless relied upon to her detriment.
8. Ultimately, by order dated 23.12.2022, the respondents prematurely retired the applicant under FR 56(j), branding her integrity as doubtful. This action was taken despite her continued involvement in significant investigations, including a major bank fraud case involving substantial financial implications. The applicant submitted a detailed representation ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 6 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 pointing out procedural irregularities, bias, and reliance on stale material; however, the same was rejected on 28.04.2023 by the Representation Committee in a mechanical manner without a reasoned or speaking order. Aggrieved by these actions, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, mala fide, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to consider the applicant's entire service record in a holistic manner and have instead relied upon isolated and irrelevant material, ignoring her long and distinguished service marked by exemplary performance.
10. It is further argued that the impugned action is vitiated by malice in law and constitutes a colourable exercise of power. According to the learned counsel, the premature retirement is not in public interest but is a direct consequence of the applicant's refusal to comply with illegal verbal directions in the Manesar Land Scam case. Thus, the power under FR 56(j) has been misused as a tool of retaliation against an upright officer.
11. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents have placed reliance on stale and obsolete material dating back several decades, which had lost all relevance in view of the ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 7 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 applicant's subsequent promotion to the rank of Dy. SP in 2015. It is contended that, as per settled principles of service jurisprudence, such adverse entries stand "washed out" and cannot be relied upon to justify premature retirement.
12. Another significant contention raised is regarding the arbitrary downgrading of the applicant's APARs. It is argued that the downgrading was carried out by a biased authority and was intended to create a false record against the applicant. The unexplained delay in reviewing the APARs further vitiates the process and indicates premeditated action.
13. The learned counsel has also emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice. The applicant was allegedly placed on a "watch list" without her knowledge, and adverse material was used against her without affording her an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, denial of the inquiry report in the trap case deprived her of a fair opportunity to defend herself.
14. It is also contended that the respondents have misused FR 56(j) as a shortcut to avoid conducting a regular departmental inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules. If there were genuine allegations against the applicant, the proper course would have been to initiate disciplinary proceedings rather than resorting to premature retirement, which is not intended to be punitive in nature.
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
8
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
15. The rejection of the applicant's representation is further assailed as being mechanical and non-speaking, as it fails to address the specific grounds raised by the applicant, including bias, procedural irregularities, and reliance on stale material.
16. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no substantive material to establish that the applicant's integrity was doubtful. On the contrary, her continued postings in sensitive positions and her consistent performance demonstrate that she was a competent and trustworthy officer. The impugned action, therefore, is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be set aside.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
I. Pritam Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2005)9 SCC 748;
II. Ajay Kumar Sharma v. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. [WP (C) No. 1823/2021] III. Avnish Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , [WP (C) No. 12675/2022] IV. South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ranvir Singh &Anr., [WP (C) No. 2176/2021] V. Ex. Constable (Exe.) Chand Prakash v.
Commissioner of Police & Anr. [OA No. 3147/2025]
18. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, it is contended that the impugned action of the respondents suffers ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 9 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 from non-application of mind, selective consideration of material, and is vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power, and therefore deserves to be quashed.
19. Opposing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents, by drawing attention to the averments made in the counter affidavit, vehemently contended that the impugned order of premature retirement passed under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is legal, valid and has been issued strictly in public interest after due application of mind to the entire service record of the applicant.
20. It is submitted that the case of the applicant was placed before the duly constituted Review Committee, which undertook a comprehensive evaluation of her overall service profile, including her conduct, integrity, performance and general reputation. Upon such consideration, the competent authority, vide approval dated 22.12.2022, formed a bona fide opinion that the continuation of the applicant in service was not desirable in public interest, and accordingly, the order dated 23.12.2022 was issued retiring her prematurely. It is emphasized that the decision is based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, founded on objective material available on record.
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
10
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
21. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the service record of the applicant reveals a consistent pattern of doubtful integrity and unsatisfactory conduct spanning across her career. It is pointed out that the applicant was placed in the Officers of Doubtful Integrity (ODI) List during the years 2008 and 2009, and subsequently in the Watch List for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, which itself reflects serious concerns regarding her integrity and professional conduct. These entries, according to the respondents, are not isolated incidents but indicative of a sustained lack of trustworthiness expected of an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
22. It is further contended that the applicant's Annual Confidential Reports/APARs also substantiate the respondents' case. Her APAR for the period 01.01.2004 to 24.06.2004 was adjudged "Below Average", with specific remarks that she lacked basic knowledge of law and procedure. In subsequent years as well, she was graded "Average", and the Reporting Officers had observed that she did not devote herself fully to official duties and performed only the bare minimum required. Such consistent gradings, coupled with adverse remarks, clearly demonstrate that the applicant failed to meet the standards expected of a responsible officer.
23. The learned counsel further submitted that several memoranda, warnings and advisories were issued to the ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 11 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 applicant from time to time on account of irregular attendance, indiscipline and unprofessional conduct. Instances have been cited where the applicant failed to discharge assigned responsibilities diligently, including failure to take necessary steps in tracing important files, mishandling of official records, and lack of follow-up in sensitive assignments. These instances cumulatively establish her careless and callous approach towards official duties.
24. It is also argued that while posted as DSP, CBI, ACB Chandigarh, the applicant exhibited gross dereliction of duty, remained on prolonged leave for significant periods, and contributed minimally to the work of the branch. Further, during inquiry into certain complaints, serious lapses were noticed in the conduct of trap proceedings, including failure to investigate key aspects, non-recovery of incriminating material, and procedural irregularities. There were also allegations of misconduct involving improper conduct with subordinate staff, which led to issuance of show cause notice for initiation of major penalty proceedings.
25. Learned counsel emphasized that the cumulative assessment of these factors led to the formation of an opinion that the applicant's continuation in service would be detrimental to public interest. It is submitted that the concept of "public interest" under FR 56(j) encompasses the need to ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 12 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 maintain integrity, efficiency and discipline in public service, and to weed out officers whose performance or conduct is found wanting. The applicant, in the present case, falls squarely within such category.
26. It is further submitted that the representation dated 12.01.2023 preferred by the applicant against the order of premature retirement was duly considered by the Representation Committee in its meeting held on 29.03.2023. The Committee, after examining the entire record and submissions of the applicant, found no merit in the representation and concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the decision already taken by the competent authority. The said decision was accordingly communicated to the applicant vide order dated 28.04.2023.
27. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the power under FR 56(j) is an absolute power vested in the appropriate authority, subject only to the condition that it must be exercised in public interest. It is clarified that premature retirement under the said provision does not amount to a punishment and does not cast any stigma upon the employee. Therefore, the safeguards applicable to disciplinary proceedings, including those under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, are not attracted in such cases.
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
13
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
28. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
I. State of U.P. and Others v. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 2 SCC 641; and II. Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Writ-A No. 12020 of 2022) to contend that the impugned action of the respondents is legal, justified, and passed after due consideration of all relevant material, and therefore does not call for any interference by this Tribunal.
29. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and, with their assistance, have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
30. We have no quarrel with the contentions of the respondents that the power under 56(j) is an absolute power vested in the appropriate authority subject only to the condition that it must be exercised in public interest.
31. We also agree with the respondents that the premature retirement under Rule 56(j) is not a punishment and does not caste any stigma upon the employee and the latter is given all pensionary benefits while leaving the Government Service. However, this general preposition as a template will have to be applied for each and every case separately and see whether the public interest has been served by removing 'deadwood' or ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 14 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 whether the said Rule 56(j) has been slyly used by the respondents to ease out individuals who are considered undesirable to be continued in the organization.
32. In the instant case, the respondents have indeed considered the entire service record of the applicant starting from 28.10.1996 which is a date of the initial entry as Sub- Inspector till December 2022, when the orders for compulsory retirement were issued. There is no doubt that even if the applicant has earned several medals and commendation certificates during her career, the same by itself would not entitle her to continued association with the respondents' organization, particularly where there exist other countervailing factors considered adverse against her, leading the respondents to form an opinion that she is unfit for further continuation in the organization. In this regard, it would be apposite to examine the adverse entries catalogued by the respondents in their counter affidavit, on the basis of which they have concluded that "the integrity of the applicant has consistently been unbecoming of a CBI officer." Serious doubts regarding the applicant's integrity and conduct have surfaced repeatedly; consequently, she was placed on the Officers of Doubtful Integrity (ODI) List in the years 2008 and 2009, and her name also figured on the Watch List for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.
33. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have, inter alia, mentioned the instances of adverse record for taking action ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 15 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 under FR 56(j): (a) that a recordable warning dated 26.07.1999 was issued to the applicant on account of irregular attendance;
(b) A memorandum dated 02.08.1999 was issued to the applicant, advising her to improve her work in the areas of deficiency pointed out in her ACR for the period from 02.06.1998 to 31.12.1998; (c) A memorandum dated 01.08.2002 was issued to her for exhibiting lack of discipline;
(d) the APAR for the period from 01.01.2004 to 24.06.2004 was graded as "Below Average," wherein it was specifically noted that the applicant lacked basic knowledge of law and procedure. The said ACR further reflected that three memoranda had been issued to her during the relevant period; (e) In 2006, a Secret Note was submitted by the SU, CBI for case No. RC.6(E)/2001 investigated by her and also that her activities as Staff Officer to the then Joint Director/Delhi was suspicious, and she had reportedly misused her influence; (f) the applicant was again graded "Average" for the year 2007, i.e. from 01.01.2008 to 20.11.2008. They also state that the Reporting Officer mentioned that due to family commitments, she was unable to devote herself fully to the job and does only the bare minimum to justify her presence in office; (g) A memorandum dated 11.12.2009 was issued to her for indiscipline, conduct and unprofessional behavior; (h) Another memorandum dated 23.12.2009 was issued to her for not taking any steps for tracing out a missing file thereby showing a lack of devotion to ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 16 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 duty; and (i) in 2010, as Inspector, while dealing with the Counterfeit Currency Desk, she handed over the foreign currencies without handing over the related files of the untraced foreign currencies, for which an explanation was called.
34. Let us pause here to note that all the above adverse entries against the applicant pertain to the period from 1999 to 2010. While the respondents have taken the entire service record into consideration in forming the opinion that the applicant is unfit for further continuance, they appear to have placed greater emphasis on the initial years of her career, during which these adverse entries were recorded.
35. However, it must not be overlooked that, notwithstanding these adverse entries, the applicant was promoted first as Inspector in 2003 and thereafter as DSP in December 2015.
36. We are guided by a catena of judgments of the constitutional courts, which hold (and to which we shall refer in the later part of this judgment) that the entire service record of the errant Government servant must be taken into consideration while invoking the power under Rule 56(j) to weed out 'deadwood'. However, greater emphasis is required to be placed on the latter part of the employee's career rather than on the earlier part of the service record.
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
17
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
37. In addition, we note that while the respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the applicant's APAR for the period 01.01.2004 to 24.06.2004 was graded as 'Below Average', they have failed to mention that the adverse entries for the said period were subsequently expunged by the competent authority.
38. Similarly, for the year 2007 (i.e., 01.01.2008 to 20.11.2008), upon her representation, the competent authority upgraded her APAR from 'Average' to 'Good'.
39. Further, in the Confidential Report of the applicant for the period 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021, the Reporting Officer observed that "the officer has a good understanding of work and adequate knowledge of the requisite rules and regulations; however, the officer is low on dedication. A notice for RDA (Major) was issued for irregularities in a trap case of the branch."
40. We are highlighting these facts to demonstrate that the respondents have placed undue emphasis on the initial phase of the applicant's career, i.e., from 1998 to 2010, prior to her promotion as DSP. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the constitutional courts that the sting of such adverse entries diminishes over time, particularly when they have been overlooked in the course of service and the applicant has subsequently been promoted to the post of DSP in 2015.
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'
18
Court No. II
O.A. No. 1507/2023
41. The respondents produced the original records of the Review Committee and the Representation Committee at our request. A detailed perusal of these records, read in conjunction with the averments made by the applicant and the reply filed by the respondents, indicates that the trigger for invoking Rule 56(j) and prematurely retiring the applicant appears to have been her conduct while functioning as DSP in CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, when she was allegedly involved in the trap case alluded to in paragraph no. 7.
42. There also appears to be some substance in the applicant's contention that her difficulties began when she did not toe the line of her superiors, particularly the then Joint Director, CBI, Delhi, who is alleged to have sought a closure report in the Manesar Land Scam investigation being conducted by her. According to the applicant, this was contrary to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which had emphasized the need to probe the role of middlemen and the alleged receipt of quid pro quo.
43. We note that during her tenure as DSP at Chandigarh for the period from 03.09.2020 to 21.12.2020, her immediate supervisory Reporting Officer had graded her as 'Outstanding'. However, the concerned Joint Director, who had only about three and a half months to observe her work, and during a substantial part of which she remained in quarantine after ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 19 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 being affected by COVID-19, downgraded her assessment from 'Outstanding' to 'Good'. It is difficult to comprehend how, while stationed in Delhi and with such limited opportunity for direct supervision, the said officer arrived at such a conclusion. Furthermore, for this brief period of three and a half months, both the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority were the same, i.e., the Inspector General (IG)!
44. The applicant had made a representation dated 24.03.2022 to the Director, CBI, pointing out all these issues and sought an up-gradation of APAR but the respondents have not decided her representation till the writing of this judgment.
45. Now going to the paragraph no. 33 wherein we have reproduced the list of adverse entries catalogued by the respondents against the applicant, it is evident that the respondents have continued to rely upon the same. It is now further stated by them that the conduct of the applicant, while being part of the investigation team in a trap case, was found to be suspicious. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 11.10.2021 was issued to her, initiating regular departmental proceedings for imposition of a major penalty.
46. The applicant in her letter dated 12.10.2021 was seeking the inquiry report based on which such action is proposed to be taken and the tone and tenor of that letter which we have ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 20 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 quoted down below might have resulted in bruising the ego of senior officer(s):-
"With due respect it is submitted that all actions in the aforesaid trap case were taken either on the direction or after obtaining the consent of the HOB and all such compliances were duly reported to the HoB.
It is requested that enquiry report along with all relevant documents, on the basis of which the aforesaid Show Cause Notice has been issued, may be provided to me so that I may prepare my reply."
It is thus evident that the respondents were contemplating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, which could have culminated in the imposition of a major penalty. However, in order to circumvent the rigours and procedural requirements of such proceedings, they appear to have resorted to the provisions of Rule 56(j) as a shortcut.
47. The respondents have consistently maintained that the applicant's alleged doubtful integrity constituted one of the primary grounds for her premature retirement under Rule 56(j). However, the adverse entries catalogued by the respondents in paragraph 33 pertaining to the period 1998-2010, prior to her promotion as DSP coupled with the fact that in the relevant column in APAR for the entire period of her career, none of her supervisory officers have described her as a person of doubtful integrity goes in her favour.
48. The respondents state that the applicant was kept on the list of ODI for the year 2008-09 but then, they have also gone ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 21 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 ahead and promoted her as a DSP in December, 2015, thereby whittling down the consequences of her name figuring in the ODI. The respondents have also kept her in the Watch List for the year 2018, 2019 and 2020. We find it inconceivable how the applicant, who was posted at the CBI Academy, Ghaziabad, a non-sensitive position, could have been placed under the Watch List for a period of three years. We do not know the internal processes of the CBI and, therefore, we do not wish to comment more in this matter and we tend to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, who drew our attention to the Ministry of Home Affairs' OM dated 28.10.1969 regarding Scheme for preparation, maintenance and custody of lists of public servants of gazetted status of doubtful integrity. The Nomenclature & Criteria for entry in the lists are follows:-
"2. The lists will be termed as the 'list of Public Servants of Gazetted status of Doubtful Integrity'. It will include names of those officers only who, after enquiry or during the course of enquiry, have been found to be lacking in integrity. It will thus include the names of the officers, with certain exceptions mentioned below, falling under one of the following categories:
i) Convicted in a court of law on a charge of lack of integrity or for an offence involving moral turpitude but on whom, in view of exceptional circumstances, a penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is imposed.
ii) Awarded departmentally a major penalty.
a) on charges of lack of integrity
b) on charges of gross dereliction of duty in protecting
the interests of Government although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof.
ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 22 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023
iii) Against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude.
iv) Who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical grounds, and in whose case on the basis of evidence during the trial there remained a reasonable suspicion against their integrity. The names of the officers of the following categories should not be included in this list:
(a) Officers who have been cleared or honourably acquitted as a result of disciplinary proceedings or court trial.
(b) Officers against whom an enquiry or investigation has not brought forth sufficient evidence for recommending even a disciplinary case.
(c) Officers who have been convicted of offences not involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude.
(d) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been completed or are in progress in respect of administrative lapses, minor violation of Conduct Rules and the like."
and states that the applicant is not falling under any of the nomenclature and criteria for entry in the list. When we look at the conspectus of the entire service of the applicant, we see that trouble started for the applicant only while she was posted in Chandigarh and working on this Manesar Land Scam Investigation, which was engaging the attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court also.
49. We find that she had raised these issues before her superiors by letter dated 24.03.2022 but the respondents transferred her to Chennai in June, 2022. It is evident that the applicant promptly reported for duty at Chennai. Furthermore, even during her tenure in Chandigarh, she was awarded a ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 23 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 commendation certificate by the Joint Director, Chennai, for her role in the investigation of a disproportionate assets case, which was assigned as an additional duty to her.
50. The respondents have relied upon the judgments as follows:
1. State of U.P. and Others v. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 2 SCC 641. The relevant paragraph nos. 15 & 16 of the said judgment read as under:-
"15. The aforesaid decisions unmistakably lay down that the entire service record of a government servant could be considered by the government while exercising the power under FR 56 (c) of the Rules with emphasis on the later entries. FR 56 (c) of the Rules read with sub-rule (2), empowers the State government with an absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead woods need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The government's right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to Screening Committee or the State government, as the case may be, to find out whether a government servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll, the government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not.
16. Withholding of integrity of a government employee is a serious matter. In the present case, what we find is that the integrity of the respondent was withheld by an order dated 13.6.1997 and the said entry in the character roll of the respondent was well within ten years of passing of ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 24 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 the order of compulsory retirement. During pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the U.P. Services Tribunal on a claim petition filed by the respondent, shifted the entry from 1997-98 to 1983-84. Shifting of the said entry to a different period or entry going beyond ten years of passing of order of compulsory retirement does not mean that its vigour and sting of the adverse entry is lost. Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out merely it is relatable to 11th or 12th years of passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The aforesaid adverse entry which could have been taken into account while considering the case of the respondent for his compulsory retirement from service, was duly considered by the State Government and said single adverse entry in itself was sufficient to compulsorily retire the respondent from service. We are, therefore, of the view that entire service record or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll can be taken into account by the government while considering a case for compulsory retirement of a government servant.
This aspect has been duly considered in the present judgment, wherein we have also observed that while the entire service record is required to be taken into account, greater emphasis ought to be placed on the later entries rather than the earlier ones, which is precisely what the respondents have done in the present case.
2. Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Writ-A No. 12020 of 2022), "1. Petitioner is a Judicial Officer. He was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 16.10.2006. He was granted further promotion to the Higher Judicial Service under rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 on 02.07.2015. His date of birth is 05.02.1966 and would have attained the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2026. His tenure, however, has been curtailed on account of order impugned passed by the State Government on 29.11.2021 compulsorily retiring him from service by resorting to powers under the Financial Hand Book (Vol. II, Part II to IV) read with amended fundamental rule 56(C). At the time of passing of such order the petitioner was posted as Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) at ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 25 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 Kaushambi. The order of compulsory retirement dated 29.11.2021 is thus assailed in the present writ petition.
xxx
3. The petitioner has appeared in person and has urged that there existed no adverse material on record on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement could be passed. The petitioner, during course of argument, has submitted that the Screening Committee has erred in recommending the petitioner's compulsory retirement on account of following reasons:-
(i) Material which was not available to form adverse opinion against the petitioner has been taken into consideration;
(ii) Material in the form of continuous satisfactory working of the petitioner has been omitted from consideration and, therefore, the decision of the Screening Committee, as affirmed by the Full Court and acted upon by the State Government, is wholly erroneous and perverse and consequently, the order impugned compulsorily retiring the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
Petitioner has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:-
"1 Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299;
2. High Court Punjab and Haryana vs. Ishwar Chand, (1999) 4 SCC 579; 3 Madan Mohan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 3 SCC 396;
4. Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 3 SCC 580;
5. State of Gujrat vs. Umedhai M. Patel, 2001 AIR (SC) 1109;
6. The Registrar High Court of Madras vs. R. Rajiah, (1988) 3 SCC 211; and
7. Brij Behari Lal Agrawal vs. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 297."
xxx ANALYSIS
10. So far as the adverse remark awarded by the Administrative Judge, Mirzapur to the petitioner for the year 2008-09 as well as representation made against it is concerned, such adverse remark has attained finality. Submission of the petitioner that in the vigilance enquiry conducted on the charge of passing bail ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 26 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 orders for extraneous consideration no finding was returned against the petitioner would not be conclusive. The Administrative Judge in his adverse remark for the year 2008- 09 has clearly noticed that complaints existed against the officer for passing bail orders on extraneous consideration. The Administrative Judge has found the integrity of the officer to be doubtful/not certified and the officer has been assessed as "not good officer". It is not clear that the Administrative Judge had made adverse remark on the same material on which the vigilance enquiry was subsequently conducted against the petitioner. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the comments of the Administrative Judge for the year 2008-09 were based only upon the complaints of Vinay Kumar Bhaghat and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. The mere fact that in the vigilance enquiry the allegations made by Vinay Kumar Bhaghat and Rajesh Kumar were not found proved, would not lead to an inference that there existed no material before the Administrative Judge for making the adverse remark against the petitioner in respect of the year 2008-09. Even otherwise, the adverse remark of the Administrative Judge has attained finality. The correctness or otherwise of the adverse remark of the learned Administrative Judge for the year 2008-09 cannot be commented upon in the present writ petition, particularly when adverse remark itself is not under challenge before us. In such view of the matter, we find that the adverse remark recorded by Administrative Judge against the petitioner for the year 2008-09 exists on record and was a relevant material to be taken note of by the Screening Committee for recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner."
51. The most recent judgment on the subject of Rule 56(j) is that of Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has ruled in paragraph 22.5 as under:
"22.5 The Takeaway From the above judgments, the following principles emerge, in the matter of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment:
(i) The scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory retirement, is fairly limited.
(ii) Compulsory retirement involves no penal consequences.
(iii) At the same time, if unlimited discretion is permitted to the administration in the matter of passing orders of compulsory retirement, it would be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonable, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal.
ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 27 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023
(iv) The exercise of power to compulsory retire an officer must be bona fide and to promote public interest.
(v) It is permissible to lift the veil in order to ascertain whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant and whether the order has been made bona fide without any oblique and extraneous purpose.
(vi) A bona fide order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion has not been informed, the decision is based on collateral factors or is arbitrary.
(vii) The court cannot sit in appeal over an order of compulsory retirement, but can interfere if it is satisfied that the order is passed mala fide, or is based on no evidence, or is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion in the given material.
(viii) The object of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment, aims at weeding out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service, and dispensing with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.
(ix) If the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the government servant or contains any statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, it would be treated as an order of punishment, attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. If, however, the order of compulsory retirement refers only to an assessment of his work and does not cast an aspersion on his conduct or character, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be treated as an order of punishment. The test would be the manner in which a reasonable person would read or understand the order of compulsory retirement.
(x) FR 56(j) does not require any opportunity to show cause to be provided before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.
(xi) Before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into account.
(xii) The gradings in the ACRs of the officer are relevant. The performance of the officer in later years, including the gradings granted in later years, would be of greater relevance than those in earlier years. Where the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as being "beyond doubt", or grade him "outstanding" or "very good", it is an important factor in favour of the officer, and would, in a given case, vitiate the order of compulsory retirement, unless it is shown that, between the last such entry and the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, there was sudden and ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 28 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 unexplained deterioration in the performance of the officer.
(xiii) Un-communicated adverse entries in the ACRs of the officer can also be taken into account before passing an order of compulsory retirement.
(xiv) Grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record is a factor operating in favour of the officer. Promotion to a higher post notwithstanding adverse remarks result in the adverse remarks losing their sting.
(xv) The fact that the officer was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, or was granted promotion after the events which formed the basis of the order of compulsory retirement, is also a relevant consideration. (xvi) The subjective satisfaction of the authority passing an order of compulsory retirement must be based on valid material.
(xvii) Compulsory retirement is not required to be by a speaking order.
(xviii) The principle of audi alteram partem has no application in the case of compulsory retirement."
52. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation in following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, particularly the principles laid down in paras (iii), (v), (xii), (xiv) (xv) and (xvi) of the take-away section.
53. Accordingly, the present O.A. is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) impugned orders dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure A-1) and 28.04.2023 (Annexure A-2) are quashed and set aside;
(ii) the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits ANJALI ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43 +05'30' 29 Court No. II O.A. No. 1507/2023 from the date of order of compulsory retirement dated 23.12.2022;
(iii) the applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules, instructions and law on the subject;
(iv) the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) (Member (J)
/anjali/
ANJALI
ANJALI 2026.04.13 16:41:43
+05'30'